Critical Social and Medical Constructions of Perinatal Substance Misuse: Truth in the Making
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The care of women and newborns with prenatal drug and alcohol exposure has been widely recognized as a significant health and social issue. There are wide variations in the values, beliefs, and knowledge regarding perinatal substance misuse in health and child welfare professionals and when contrasted to the field of sociology. Sociology and critical social theory provide an alternative to a traditional medical perspective by using a contextual lens through which to move beyond the “medicalization” of health and illness toward an understanding that considers the historical, political, and social interpretations of perinatal substance misuse. However, the medical and critical social perspectives are often seen as incommensurable. This discussion of the health issues related to perinatal substance misuse and the analysis from a critical social perspective are provided as an attempt to move communities away from rhetoric and toward development of effective, supportive interventions that meet the health and social needs of substance-using women and their children.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.031 | 0.042 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.017 | 0.141 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.020 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".